Thinking about how gender reifies colonial power has begun to be an important analytic in Native studies with the publication of special issues on Native feminisms in American Quarterly (2008) and Wicazo Sa Review (2009), and the three exciting panels on Native feminisms at the 2008 Native American and Indigenous Studies Conference in Athens, Georgia. 2 While gender is not a main theoretical framework in Native studies, discussions of gender occur more frequently than do those about sexuality. In Native studies, gender is not as scary a topic as sexuality, especially discussions of Native sexualities. This reaction should be reconsidered. An important analysis of colonial power for Native studies and Native nations can be found in Michel Foucault’s theories of sexuality and biopower. He argues that the modern racial state comes into being by producing “sex” as a quality of bodies and populations, which get targeted for life or death as a method of enacting state power. He says that historically this “gave rise... to comprehensive measures, statistical assessments, and interventions aimed at the entire social body or at groups taken as a whole. Sex was a means of access to both the life of the body and the life of the species.” 3 Scholars in Native studies increasingly argue that biopower defines the colonization of Native peoples when it makes sexuality, gender, and race key arenas of the power of the settler state. 4